++> From continuing exchange between Frank Masingill
 ++> and David Martorana on "Ideology vs. philosophy"
 
     I believe that those of us living within arenas of ideologies
     can and do explore the worlds of philosophy i.e. .....as even
     the leaders in some early churches examined the options and even
     absorbed much of the discovered meaning into their ideologies!
 
 DM>> We live by, and within, ideologies, most formed to some degree by
 DM>> initial philosophical leanings.  Whether individual, or collective
 DM>> (such as governments), these idea based institutions are how we
 DM>> do our daily business.  The family itself is the prime ideology
 DM>> of our species. When (good) ideology breaks down we have chaos.
 
 FM> With such a definition of ideology as you outline how could there
 FM> be any debate or, indeed, even any such thing as "ideology."  I'm
 FM> certainly incapable of debating on ideology when given such a
 FM> definitiion.  Obviously, a great many scholars flatly disagree
 FM> with such a definition of the word.  Victims of the holocaust or
 FM> of the Gulag (described by Solzhenitzen) would certainly be
 FM> wide-eyed at such a benign definition.  See my response in a
 FM> longer message.
 
  Ideology = 1. The study of ideas and their nature and source
                      2. Thinking or theorizing of an idealistic,
                         abstract or impractical nature; fanciful
                         speculation.
                      3. The doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking of
                         an individual, class, etc; specif. the body of
                         ideas on which a particular political, economic
                         or social system is based.
 
  Ideology = Closed dogma
 
  Much of what I've said falls within the Webster definition mix. I
  mentioned good and bad ideology (you did not quote that part of my
  posting). You bend the term to the "all bad", which is NOT even
  mentioned in the definition (though "fanciful [2] might qualify in
  some negative senses).
  That governments and families (at least mine was/is) are actually
  ideologies, you do not address. Now that I've finally grasped that
  you and your quoted authors are only speaking of the "bad half" of
  ideology/ies (leaving the other half silent), I would understand your
  future references using the term. It would be far more clear to use
  a less ambiguous term ......easier to just say "dictatorships" are bad.
  .....sort of like the use of "liberal" and "conservative" near bent
  completely out of ANY definition, dictionarial or privately minted.
 
 FM> No, I don't think your response is dishonest but I do think it glibly
 FM> overlooks some hard and fast experiences we have had as human beings,
 FM> especially in this century regarding the destructive nature of ideology
 FM> and the continued pursuit of philosophy which is always toward the
 FM> search for wisdom and meaning in existence.
 
        Converting "ideology" into "dictatorship" I agree!
        with most all your historical insights.
 
 FM> I can't see anything to be gained in taking up your reaction
 FM> to my post in piecemeal fashion for your opposition to the notion
 FM> that ideology is dangerous for mankind is quite firm. I AM puzzled
 FM> as to why.
 
     Again, as above word conversion.......
 
 FM> If the events of the 20th century have not taught this lesson then
 FM> I'm not sure you and those who might agree with your point of view
 FM> CAN be brought to see it.  We had the now-discredited  "communist"
 FM> ideology seizing power in Russia PRECISELY at the moment when the
 FM> Kerensky government was on the verge of atttempting to establish a
 FM> non-imperial government and introducing the dictatorship of Lenin
 FM> and Stalin issuing in the still uncounted but KNOWN slaughter of
 FM> masses in the interest of a "system" which DECLARED that there is
 FM> ONE AND ONLY ONE SYSTEM of political order acceptable for all human
 FM> beings anywhere on the globe.  THAT is ideology.
 
     Again as above
 
 FM> In addition, we had a global war in large part induced by a fascist
 FM> ideology also declaring the end of the validity of any philosophical
 FM> ideas or tenets not agreeing with those of fascism in Italy and
 FM> national socialism in Germany where people were dragged from their
 FM> beds and households and slaughtered BECAUSE OF THEIR THOUGHTS AND
 FM> RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES.
 
     Not to skew your enthusiasms, but did we not drag the Indians
     from their tepee's and also slaughter them for even less? -
     AND !!! under the careful eye of a freedom based "ideology",
     formed to a large degree by the "wisdom loving". Any serious
     debate or critique under the "WESTERN cannons" left the Indians
     at best along the edges.... I know this is just anecdotal along
     the way of progress, and gets in the way of your points.
     Pardon!
 
 FM> All of this had its precedents in the period since enlightenment and
 FM> all were produced by the specific EMBRACING OF TOTALITARIAN ANSWERS
 FM> which DENIED ANY CRITIQUE UNDER THE CANONS OF WESTERN LOGIC AND DEBATE.
 FM> That is NOT philosophy.  It IS ideology.  Always has been, always will
 FM> be.
 
     Again.       (the "totalitarian" fits well)!
 
 FM> I am looking at history.  You are continuing to give the word
 FM> "ideology" a benign definition as nothing more than a sort of
 FM> bundle of ideas that people hearing can accept or reject.
 
     Sorry, Webster threw me off the main trail!
                  ..............Masingill guided me back to it!
 
 FM> simply flies in the face of the clear distinctions that have been
 FM> made.  One calling her/him/itself a "philosopher" may, INDEED, be,
 FM> instead, an ideologist but that does not change the clear distinction
 FM> between a Nazi or a Communist or even a doctrinaire Liberal
 FM> dogmatism on the one hand and philosophy which is open to the open
 FM> course of society and the future on the other.
 
 FM> That's the best I can do.  You appear to challenge the authors I have
 FM> mentioned without reading their core messages and dealing with THOSE
 FM> IDEAS, substituting, instead, some definitions that favor your own
 FM> inclinations
 
     Yes! .....but I don't think gathering up a gang, hand picked,
     to aid in making your points to be any more of serious.
     illumination.
 
 FM> with not even the slightest concession that there might
 FM> be SOME merit in what others have to say on the subject.
 
     Reading as fast as I can ........however seeming slow.
     Might be that I'd be best effective in philosophical
     exchanges after I'd read all the books! 
 
     
 FM> ...........I honestly cannot see that in your responses you
 FM> actually get into the central points I am trying to make.
                                     ,,
     ..........Perhaps not....!      oo ... Dave
 
 P.S. For most of my years, philosophy was just a package of "ways
      you lived your life by" (one's philosophy of life) ......the
      idea that philosophy is "a love to search for wisdom" is new
      to me and as I read the classical philosophers, and books
      about philosophy, I still have NOT been able to develop
      such a noble working definition of it as you..............!
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------